I’m not sure where your life must go wrong to land you on a Saturday morning looking up “mammary intercourse” on Wikipedia (link NSFW), but sometimes life just rolls like that, the earth squeaks around on its axis and we just keep moving on. (Truth be told, this photo of graffiti got me to looking up Bukkake just to make sure I knew what it was.)
One thing I’d like to point out, though, is the completely creepy illustration that accompanies that entry. If you’re fortunate enough to be somewhere where you can click the link, have a look. Who wants to guess what my beef is with the picture?
I’ll give you a hint: SEX DOES NOT EQUAL PORN. And vice versa.
The lady is decked out in red lipstick and earrings, and is looking seductively, mouth agape, at the viewer — not her partner — as strings of ejaculate fly toward her. This is a classic porn pose. It is performance. It is flattery for the (default male) viewer. It is nothing more.
Obviously, this illustration is not included for education. But if they just have to include a visual aid for the entry, I don’t get why it should be this one. Other than the idea that porn=sex is so pervasive that most people don’t even notice the difference.
Now check out the unsettling edit log for the photo. There’s some back-and-forth about the racial makeup of the lovers in the illustration. Supposedly now that’s been fixed with more neutral, mixed-race skintones (the folks still look pretty white to me, but that is SO NOT THE POINT).
Kudos to the person who tried to crop out the “pornographic look into camera.” I’m laughing at the person who edited the color of the areolae to be more “realistic.”
Jesus, I don’t even think these people have any idea how hilarious that is.
I never liked wikipedia pages about sexual performances, Maybe “the equation sex=porn” is the best way to explain what was disturbing me.
Anyway long life to sex, porn and free knowledge.
V.